Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Hades, Dec 7, 2006.
Chupin's gonna be fighting 100 guys for a fish stick
In 30 years when you're still a smelly old man and the world is still around I'll look you up in your nursing home and laugh in your face.
Stopped reading after this line here:
"Satellite data revealed for the first time that global warming could devastate key marine life, scientists announced today."
Once again the media is making a theory sound like a fact.
Any plan to deal with potential issues needs to know the alternative scenarios or potential likely scenarios. You fucking kids who want 100 fact before taking things serious will be the same one's crying in future years about why people didn't take action sooner. You need to know trends and likely scenarios in order to plan, and that in turn provides you with options to mitgate impacts.
People should take this stuff with a grain of salt, but realize that a majority of the world's scientists believe global warming is going to have a lot of impacts that are going to shape humanity for better or worse. The rest of the world is starting to get it, while Americans are still living in a fantasy world. The bottom line is that huge wars over food, farmable land, and drinking water are more likely under any global warming scenario. Drinking water, drought, and famine are currently getting worse, and those issues are happening right now.......and its driving human migrations which eventually lead to wars.
Technology can only delay the inevitable for so long, but in our lifetime this country is going to be grappling with those same basic issues.
Fuck, if we should worry about everything we wouldn't leave the house. Direct contact with sun-rays could cause skin cancer!!!!!! Rabid dogs could be out on the street waiting to bite me! I could be stabbed tomorrow in my own home! If we worried about every little 'could' then we'd be fools.
There's a warming in my pants.
I'm waitin. I'd rather not have global warming. But as I understand it michigan is just high enough to avoid glacial melting. And would likely end up a tropical environment. So bring it on, fuck up the environment while I chill and sip cool brews out by my future lakefront property.
well Global Warming IS a big issue, because it's going to have a really big impact
to me as a european it will be noticable when the Gulf Stream will stop floating, bringing us warm water, it's going to be pretty cold instead of hot. well the heat will stay in the sea, so you can guess who will one day have a category 6 hurricane above his house.
the world ain't gonna explode like the Overlook just because Jack Torrance forgot to watch the boiler room. but take a look at your expenses for air conditioning, both heating and cooling, they are gonna raise.
I don't really want to think about wars going to start because of climate change, but if the USA aren't going to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, it going to be FUCKING EXPENSIVE to cover the costs dealing whith a changing weather.
Actually global warning isn't really a big issue seeing as it is a theory, nothing more. Saying that most scientists belive it means nothing to me as most of them also believe in evolution(and preach it as fact when it's still a theory) which breaks the laws of physics(something coming from nothing).
the theory is only about why global temperatures are rising, and what effect this is going to have. perhaps it's not your fault, of course. but looking at the statistical records of the past years, also centuries, it's a fact that they are rising. and that's something we have to deal with. ask insurance companies.
We don't have records that go back centuries. It's my understanding they started actually recording weather patterns and temperatures to study back in the early 1900s.
Ummm...how does evolution say something comes from nothing?
Sorry to nitpick, but they started recording temps in the 1800s, and here's a graph of the annual global temperature anomaly for the past 150 years. It may not seem like much, but its a global average.:
Then here's a graph of the temperature reconstructed for the past 2 millenia. Several different reconstructions were used, all of which are shown. Each one is smoothed for the decadal scale. Once again, though anomalies are small, the spike starting from the period of the Industrial Revolution cannot be passed off as insignificant.:
Here's a pic of the CO2 variations, showing the pattern for Ice ages up until today. Notice the dramatic rise caused by the industrial revolution:
There's some other stuff. But if data/opinions of scientists don't mean much to you, there's not much that can be done to persuade you.
Assuming you take the Theory of Evolution at face value, that is all life on earth evolved from a similar organism through random mutation/survival you can trace all life on earth back to a single organism. The question then becomes where did that organism come from. (Something from nothing).
Theistic evolutionists, Gap Theory, etc are all attempts to compensate for the above question, which by definition of evolution cannot have an answer.
Global Warming is a real phenomenon, however I simply do not believe that the effects theorized will come to pass, or that humans alone are the sole reason for the increase in temperature. The "Global Warming" scare is simply a vehicle for groups of people who otherwise would not have any power in the socio-political landscape (environmentalists) to obtain power. The threat is exacerbated in order to ensure a large base of support from the public. Furthermore, this grasp for power is really used at the expense of that which they claim to protect by using psuedo-science, or factual science that doesn't have the advantage of long-term data to put the scientific findings in perspective. A prime example is the 1970's outcry of carbon monoxide emissions from vehicles which resulted in the invention of the Catalytic Converter.
Actually, evolution covers just that, evolution of oragnisms. It does not attempt to answer the question of the origin of the original organism.
Where did it come from? For this we go into the theory of protobionts and RNA molecules.
The first thing is the synthesis of organic compounds. We are looking at early Earth, where the conditions were different from those of today. The first atmosphere was proably thick with water vapor, along with various compounds released by volcanic gases: Nitrogen and its oxides, carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia, hydrogen and hydrogen sulfide.
In the 1920s, the Russian chemist Oparin and British scientist Haldane both independently postulated that Earth's early atmosphere was a reducing (electron-adding) environment, in which organic compounds could have formed from simple molecules. The energy for the synthesis would be from the sun's UV radiation and lightning.
The Earth's oceans were a solution of organic molecules, from which life arose. In 1953 Stanley Miller and Harold Urey of U Chicago tested this by creating the same environmental conditions present on early earth in the laboratory. The apparatus is here:
Using this, they were able to produce a variety of amino acids, along with other organic compounds. Studies done today suggest that these reactions most likely took place near the vents at the bottom of the ocean, where hot water provides the entropy for the reaction.
Because of this, it is conceivable that there was the abiotic synthesis of polymers. Polymers chains are actually simple reactions that require free radicals, which can be created just from UV light. So we have what are known as protobionts, or aggregates of abiotically produced molecules surrounded by a membrane or membrane-like structure. Protobionts exhibit some of the properties associated with life, including simple reproduction and metabolism, as well as the maintenance of an internal chemical environment different from that of their surroundings.
Lab experiments demonstrate that protobionts could have formed spontaneously from abiotically produced organic compounds. For example, small membrane-bounded droplets called liposomes can form when lipids or other organic molecules are added to water. The hydrophobic molecules in the mixture organize into a bilayer at the surface of the droplet, much like the lipid bilayer of a plasma membrane. Because the membrane is selectively permeable, liposomes can undergo osmotic swelling or shrinking, and can even discharge voltage in nerve cell-like fashion!
The first genetic material was probably RNA. RNA, besides being able to store genetic material as it is known for doing today, can also act like an enzyme for catalytic functions. These RNA are called "ribozymes". Natural selection on the molecular level has been observed operating on RNA populations in the laboratory. Unlike double stranded DNA, RNA can assume a variety of specific 3d shapes, as it does not suffer from the same bond strain as DNA.
The best part is that this form of RNA is able to self replicate, because of base pairing affininty between purines and pyrimadines.
With all of this, it is possible to see how simple life could have started from inorganic chemicals. After that, you pick up with the theory of evolution.
I hope that wasn't a bore. I'm a biology major, so this stuff is important to me.
while you starve to death, because all the livestock died and there are no more crops? good luck with that
He won't starve, they'll just serve roasted Chupin and Maeglin. You could eat for months on those two fatheads..p
you kidding, the grocery store will still have that stuff! heh
How can you guage what the weather was thouands of years ago? You can't. As chupin was saying, the main thing that debunks evolution is where everything came from, not how the first organic molecule was formed. Yes conditions can cause life to spring out of nowhere but you have to have matter to work with. So where did this matter come from?
Back to global warming. Ok so we have records from 1860(I was close enough). If you can't predict what the weather will be in two weeks from now, how the fuck can you predict 20 years from now? Or even 2000 years ago? That's 140 years of weather data, compared to thousands of years(or millions if you belive in evolution)of unknown wether patterns that scientists take "educated guesses" to support their own theories.
Soil samples, ice samples, petrified tree rings, living trees, DNA analysis of plant and animal genes, etc. You can also examine living plants that act as carbon storage devices and determine how much carbon they are taking out of the air per plant, and then base estimates off of that (sort of like they did with plankton).
Its not rocket science, it just takes someone with an attention span and who gives a shit about the earth we're likely going to be living on. We're already seeing natural ecosystems collapsing or on the verge of collapse. So the basic message is that the effects of global warming aren't a 1000 years from now, they are happening now and a big natural chain reaction is beginning.
The little ice age of the midevil period and all the wars that caused are nothing compared to what man would do over the next 50 years as we war over farmland, drinking water, and dwindling food supplies.